People access online video through multiple devices. While the PC remains the most popular device of access, standalone Internet video devices, set top boxes, smart phones, and TV's have recorded gains recently. Regardless of the type of device, sifting through online video listings remains a tedious task. At present, a text based approach is predominantly used to describe video, where a selection is determined by its title and any optional information such as a thumbnail and meta-data containing descriptions and/or user comments.
Two improvements have been proposed, both of them server-centric. The first is the storyboard approach, in which a video storyboard presentation is added to a video link. A storyboard contains an array of frames that provide a useful guide to the content of the video. Typically, the movement of a mouse along a video link activates the accompanying storyboard. Unfortunately, current methods to generate storyboards are computationally intensive and therefore are typically pre-generated at the server, limiting its widespread use.
The second approach to enhance the online video experience is playback of “key” frames of the video. In this approach, a mouse action over the initial thumbnail representing the video initiates the playback of a subset of frames called key frames. Key frames are typically frames that can be decoded independently. The key frame generation is in real-time, so that the server need not pre-generate a key frame sequence apart from the stream itself.
As understood herein, both of the above-discussed server side enhancements impose restrictions in terms of availability, compatibility and performance. Availability is limited to only online video sites offering specific support for the functionality. For example, a client device may be able to access key-frame playback on one site but not on a site that does not support the feature. Compatibility is limited to those client devices that meet the minimum system requirements (memory, graphics, screen size etc.) needed to support the server's presentation format. As understood herein, devices such as smart phones may fall short in meeting these requirements. Finally, neither approach gives consideration to a client device's available bandwidth. This may result in unacceptable latencies in presentation.